The headline reads Polar bears' melting habitat melted girl's heart and the story beneath it doesn’t get any less exploitive. So who’s the villain here?
Today's TwinCities.com tells the tragic tale of Michelle Bergh, a 9-year-old girl who “cried herself to sleep” a year ago after watching a TV special about the “Arctic warming trends' threat to polar bears.” You can almost picture her agony as the article quotes the Stillwater, Minnesota girl sobbing:
“It just broke my heart. This is a really big deal. They're dying. I really want my children and grandchildren to see a polar bear some day."
Donna Woelfel-Bergh corroborated her daughter’s horror:
"It absolutely upset her. Tears were streaming down her face. She went to bed sobbing that night."
Unfortunately, the article failed to disclose its actual title, so the extent of the offending TV show’s slant can only be surmised. But article author Megan Boldt was quick to identify the villainy causing the poor girl’s suffering to her readers:
“The chief threat to the polar bear is the melting of its primary habitat, sea ice, because of global warming, according to the National Wildlife Federation. Polar bears also are stressed by human activity, including oil and gas development in their habitat.”
What nonsense. As we’ve pointed out in the past, despite recent alarmist success in landing them on the endangered species list, polar bear populations have more than doubled since 1960 and the species, which dates back 130,000 years, has managed to adapt through many naturally occurring warming periods more severe than the one we’re currently retreating from.
So instead of sending her daughter to bed in tears, why wasn’t Michelle’s mother easing her emotional distress by reassuring her that the furry objects of her worry were going to be just fine? That she should relax and focus her attention on her schoolwork, Hannah Montana tickets, and the myriad other normal things a 9 year old girl frets about?
Perhaps a Google-search of her mother’s maiden name (h/t Iain Murray) lends some insight.
Might this be the same Donna Woelfel practicing chiropractic twenty miles away in Roseville, Minnesota? If so, then in a 2006 Today’s ChiropracticLiving Green piece, Michelle Bergh’s mom explained the steps taken in turning their new home into a green dwelling:
“We have primarily hardwood and ceramic tile flooring, because they are much less likely to cause allergic reactions than vinyl or carpet. Carpet is laden with formaldehyde, which is very toxic to many people. We put in wood blinds instead of drapes, because they are easier to clean and less likely to attract dust and allergens than drapes. We have a well and water-filtration system; we do not have chlorine or fluoride in our water. We have lots of large windows, allowing in lots of natural light. We use bedding products that claim to decrease dust mites. We use dehumidifiers daily to lessen the chance of mold developing. We have high-efficiency air purifiers throughout the house. We try to use mild cleaning solutions whenever possible instead of the ones riddled with harsh chemicals and toxins. We have lots of live, green plants, because they provide healthier oxygen for you to breathe. There is no lead paint in our house. I’m also planning to plant a chemical-free vegetable garden in our yard.”
TC called the laundry list a “how-to guide for healthy living.” Others might regard it as something decidedly less healthy.
Print
